CBO Paper Looks at DOE’s Nuclear Weapons Labs
The passing of the Cold War era has prompted many to rethink the nation’s policies for its nuclear arsenal. Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, charged the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with studying the nation’s nuclear weapons labs. The CBO’s response, a 45-page paper entitled, “The Bomb’s Custodians,” was released in July. The paper reviews the Administration’s plans in light of budget constraints, and suggests three alternatives that would better fit within reduced funding scenarios.
The Clinton Administration’s plan is built upon the concept of “science-based stewardship.” According to CBO, this policy emphasizes both maintaining existing nuclear weapons, and continuing research on new weapons at a scale “comparable with that of past decades.” Calling these goals “wide-ranging” and “ambitious,” CBO warns that “planned levels of funding are not likely to be sufficient for the programs and facilities that DOE plans to support during the rest of the decade.”
Alternatively, the CBO paper presents three options, which would each sacrifice some aspects of the Administration’s plan to achieve varying levels of cost savings. All three options would increase funding for basic stewardship of the existing stockpile. While the first two options would each de-emphasize certain activities, neither would drastically change existing policy. The third option would make more fundamental changes, such as designating only one lab as the sole design lab.
Option 1 would end all nuclear and hydronuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, and relinquish the ability to resume testing within a few years. Basic stewardship activities such as computer simulations, surveillance, and component testing would be funded at an amount greater than planned by the Administration. This option would fund dual-use activities and facilities, such as the proposed National Ignition Facility, as well as CRADAs (Cooperative R&D agreements with industry.) At a maximum, this option would generate net savings of $80 million a year after 1996.
While also increasing funding for basic stewardship activities, Option 2 would focus more on additional activities focused on the existing arsenal, such as hydronuclear testing. Dual-use and commercial activities would have lower priority: this option would cancel the National Ignition Facility and reduce funding for CRADAs by one-third. It would save over $100 million a year by the end of the decade.
Option 3 would incorporate all the cuts proposed in the other options: end testing at the Nevada Test Site, cancel the National Ignition Facility, and reduce funding for CRADAs. It would increase basic stewardship funding, but by less than Options 1 and 2. It would also make fundamental changes to the system of weapons labs; consolidating all design work into either Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore. (The report suggests Los Alamos.) Along with the third weapons lab, Sandia, Livermore would then become responsible for stewardship activities. CBO estimates that savings would increase from $60 million in 1995 to $365 million annually from 1999 on.
A single copy of the CBO paper can be obtained, free of charge, from the CBO publications office at 202-226-2809.
